And it's followed up by a 22 minute block. Whoever this monster pool hopper is please sod off. And if my conspiracy theory is right please also sod off because it's not funny.

Whilst I am not against the possibility that there could be a bug in the code that caused the pool to find less blocks when the hash rate breaches a particular level, let's look at the facts as they stand and then decide: -

From what I can see, the first time the pool went over 10PH was on the 5th December 2014, although it only stayed over 10PH for a few hours. On that day we found 6 blocks, all valid.

On 8th December, the pool passed 10PH (in fact it did it late the previous evening) and found 7 blocks that day. The pool remained above 10PH for pretty much the rest of the month and in that time it found a total of 125 blocks, of which 123 were valid. This is an average of 5.1 blocks per day.

The average blocks per day for the last few months are as follows: -

4.6 in October - (est. average pool hash rate = 7.8PH)5.1 in November (est. average pool hash rate = 8.6PH)5.2 in December (est. average pool hash rate = 10.3PH)4.0 in January (est. average pool hash rate < 10.3PH)5.2 so far for February (est. average pool hash rate < 9.3PH)

Looking at January as the worst month in recent times, we see that it started the month at 11.6PH and remained above 10PH until the 15th Jan (finding 65 valid blocks in 14.5 days). For the remaining 16.5 days of the month, the pool never went over 10PH (and was on average closer to 9PH) and found 57 blocks.

I personally would therefore call it luck (both good and bad) rather than being a bug in the code.

Cheers n beers

HP

P.S. In the same 2 periods in January, the BTC guild found 108 blocks and 89 blocks respectively, so our poor run in January if anything other than luck, was caused by something that effected other pools as well.

And it's followed up by a 22 minute block. Whoever this monster pool hopper is please sod off. And if my conspiracy theory is right please also sod off because it's not funny.

...

The average blocks per day for the last few months are as follows: -

4.6 in October - (est. average pool hash rate = 7.8PH)5.1 in November (est. average pool hash rate = 8.6PH)5.2 in December (est. average pool hash rate = 10.3PH)4.0 in January (est. average pool hash rate < 10.3PH)5.2 so far for February (est. average pool hash rate < 9.3PH)

Looking at January as the worst month in recent times, we see that it started the month at 11.6PH and remained above 10PH until the 15th Jan (finding 65 valid blocks in 14.5 days). For the remaining 16.5 days of the month, the pool never went over 10PH (and was on average closer to 9PH) and found 57 blocks.

I personally would therefore call it luck (both good and bad) rather than being a bug in the code.

I'd rather look at it on the face of it rather than compartmentalise this based on months .... aside from the difficulty mined in certain periods, there is nothing to make a month's period any special to the bitcoin network. So here goes ...

I was only able to get data for the period 2015-01-08 18:50:01 to 2015-02-18 13:15:21 (i.e the last block) and we have:

53 Blocks where the Pool Scoring Hash Rate was below 9 Ph/s66 Blocks where the Pool Scoring Hash Rate was above 9 Ph/s BUT below 9.5 Ph/s23 Blocks where the Pool Scoring Hash Rate was above 9.5 BUT less than 10 Ph/sPh/s23 Blocks where the Pool Scoring Hash Rate was above 10 Ph/s

So there .... there may be some mileage in the conspiracy theory but we do not go without!

And it's followed up by a 22 minute block. Whoever this monster pool hopper is please sod off. And if my conspiracy theory is right please also sod off because it's not funny.

...

The average blocks per day for the last few months are as follows: -

4.6 in October - (est. average pool hash rate = 7.8PH)5.1 in November (est. average pool hash rate = 8.6PH)5.2 in December (est. average pool hash rate = 10.3PH)4.0 in January (est. average pool hash rate < 10.3PH)5.2 so far for February (est. average pool hash rate < 9.3PH)

Looking at January as the worst month in recent times, we see that it started the month at 11.6PH and remained above 10PH until the 15th Jan (finding 65 valid blocks in 14.5 days). For the remaining 16.5 days of the month, the pool never went over 10PH (and was on average closer to 9PH) and found 57 blocks.

I personally would therefore call it luck (both good and bad) rather than being a bug in the code.

I'd rather look at it on the face of it rather than compartmentalise this based on months .... aside from the difficulty mined in certain periods, there is nothing to make a month's period any special to the bitcoin network. So here goes ...

I was only able to get data for the period 2015-01-08 18:50:01 to 2015-02-18 13:15:21 (i.e the last block) and we have:

53 Blocks where the Pool Scoring Hash Rate was below 9 Ph/s66 Blocks where the Pool Scoring Hash Rate was above 9 Ph/s BUT below 9.5 Ph/s23 Blocks where the Pool Scoring Hash Rate was above 9.5 BUT less than 10 Ph/sPh/s23 Blocks where the Pool Scoring Hash Rate was above 10 Ph/s

True, When it hits the 10PH mark the blocks stop for regular users and the clock keeps running. However, behind the scenes a select VIP elite group are actually getting the same regular block times the rest of us were enjoying and splitting the rewards between them. Once they've creamed enough they then drop the hash rate below 10PH which synchronizes the system and the extra long block ends and normal service resumes.

I'd rather look at it on the face of it rather than compartmentalise this based on months .... aside from the difficulty mined in certain periods, there is nothing to make a month's period any special to the bitcoin network. So here goes ...

I was only able to get data for the period 2015-01-08 18:50:01 to 2015-02-18 13:15:21 (i.e the last block) and we have:

53 Blocks where the Pool Scoring Hash Rate was below 9 Ph/s66 Blocks where the Pool Scoring Hash Rate was above 9 Ph/s BUT below 9.5 Ph/s23 Blocks where the Pool Scoring Hash Rate was above 9.5 BUT less than 10 Ph/sPh/s23 Blocks where the Pool Scoring Hash Rate was above 10 Ph/s

True, When it hits the 10PH mark the blocks stop for regular users and the clock keeps running. However, behind the scenes a select VIP elite group are actually getting the same regular block times the rest of us were enjoying and splitting the rewards between them. Once they've creamed enough they then drop the hash rate below 10PH which synchronizes the system and the extra long block ends and normal service resumes.

Yes, I am crazy and I am aware I have opened the floodgates.

If you actually believe that drivel and think the pool op is actively screwing you, why don't you move elsewhere?

I'd rather look at it on the face of it rather than compartmentalise this based on months .... aside from the difficulty mined in certain periods, there is nothing to make a month's period any special to the bitcoin network. So here goes ...

I was only able to get data for the period 2015-01-08 18:50:01 to 2015-02-18 13:15:21 (i.e the last block) and we have:

53 Blocks where the Pool Scoring Hash Rate was below 9 Ph/s66 Blocks where the Pool Scoring Hash Rate was above 9 Ph/s BUT below 9.5 Ph/s23 Blocks where the Pool Scoring Hash Rate was above 9.5 BUT less than 10 Ph/sPh/s23 Blocks where the Pool Scoring Hash Rate was above 10 Ph/s

True, When it hits the 10PH mark the blocks stop for regular users and the clock keeps running. However, behind the scenes a select VIP elite group are actually getting the same regular block times the rest of us were enjoying and splitting the rewards between them. Once they've creamed enough they then drop the hash rate below 10PH which synchronizes the system and the extra long block ends and normal service resumes.

Yes, I am crazy and I am aware I have opened the floodgates.

If you actually believe that drivel and think the pool op is actively screwing you, why don't you move elsewhere?

I'd rather look at it on the face of it rather than compartmentalise this based on months .... aside from the difficulty mined in certain periods, there is nothing to make a month's period any special to the bitcoin network. So here goes ...

I was only able to get data for the period 2015-01-08 18:50:01 to 2015-02-18 13:15:21 (i.e the last block) and we have:

53 Blocks where the Pool Scoring Hash Rate was below 9 Ph/s66 Blocks where the Pool Scoring Hash Rate was above 9 Ph/s BUT below 9.5 Ph/s23 Blocks where the Pool Scoring Hash Rate was above 9.5 BUT less than 10 Ph/sPh/s23 Blocks where the Pool Scoring Hash Rate was above 10 Ph/s

True, When it hits the 10PH mark the blocks stop for regular users and the clock keeps running. However, behind the scenes a select VIP elite group are actually getting the same regular block times the rest of us were enjoying and splitting the rewards between them. Once they've creamed enough they then drop the hash rate below 10PH which synchronizes the system and the extra long block ends and normal service resumes.

Yes, I am crazy and I am aware I have opened the floodgates.

If you actually believe that drivel and think the pool op is actively screwing you, why don't you move elsewhere?

Because I don't ACTUALLY believe that you bellend.

But then again, you might be onto something ..... if you look at the numbers from your assertion, they tell us:

That is, during the period 8th Jan 2015 - 18th Feb 2015, the pool found ~86% of the blocks when the pool was hashing below 10 Ph/s and only 13% when the pool was hashing above 10 Ph/s. Now, I am not usually a supersticious person, but that 13 in the above 10 Ph/s does put the conspiracy theories on the back burner ..... what do you think? And if it turns out that the 1-2 Ph/s roving hashpower that seems to affect our block solving capacity is made up of 13 rigs, that would be something!

Now, I am not usually a supersticious person, but that 13 in the above 10 Ph/s does put the conspiracy theories on the back burner ..... what do you think? And if it turns out that the 1-2 Ph/s roving hashpower that seems to affect our block solving capacity is made up of 13 rigs, that would be something!

That you failed read the entire post in context and thus also failed to decipher the sacarsm in that is only testament to you being new here ...!

That you failed read the entire post in context and thus also failed to decipher the sacarsm in that is only testament to you being new here ...!

I was only able to get data for the period 2015-01-08 18:50:01 to 2015-02-18 13:15:21 (i.e the last block) and we have:

I could not get the December numbers, but that is neither here nor there as my numbers are NOT claims, but I can honestly say yours are just that ... because I could not get hold of them when I tried!

I have numbers from October onwards from Slush, BTC Guild and Eligius, which I have copied from the pools and pasted into a spread sheet, so my numbers are not claims, just facts that you did not have to hand

Been mining on Slush for a couple of years, I just don't post much so rather than newbie I would say I am just quiet - and sick of conspiracy theories based on no hard evidence, so I broke silence to add some facts to the equation.

However I have no argument with anyone and since I did indeed fail to spot your sarcasm, I will slink back into the shadows and let the usual contributors continue the song and dance show.

That you failed read the entire post in context and thus also failed to decipher the sacarsm in that is only testament to you being new here ...!

I was only able to get data for the period 2015-01-08 18:50:01 to 2015-02-18 13:15:21 (i.e the last block) and we have:

I could not get the December numbers, but that is neither here nor there as my numbers are NOT claims, but I can honestly say yours are just that ... because I could not get hold of them when I tried!

I have numbers from October onwards from Slush, BTC Guild and Eligius, which I have copied from the pools and pasted into a spread sheet, so my numbers are not claims, just facts that you did not have to hand

Been mining on Slush for a couple of years, I just don't post much so rather than newbie I would say I am just quiet - and sick of conspiracy theories based on no hard evidence, so I broke silence to add some facts to the equation.

However I have no argument with anyone and since I did indeed fail to spot your sarcasm, I will slink back into the shadows and let the usual contributors continue the song and dance show.

Cheers n beers

HP

Fair enough if you are the quiet one ... (there must be a reason why but thats for another day).So, if you have the numbers from Slush dating back from October (I assume that is last year), then you'd know without any doubt that my numbers are NOT claims at all, rather facts. That, of course, is on the premise that you engaged your brain before posting to rubbish my numbers, which in this case you certainly did not (and may explain why you'd chosen to be quiet previously!).Honestly, get off your perch!

If you really want to analyze it, please at least do so in a way that makes sense. Saying there were X number of blocks at >10PH/s vs Y blocks at <10PH/s in a given period is a relatively useless measurement. Take the numbers from whatever period you want (say everything from the start of December onward), calculate the luck for each block solved, then group them along whatever cutoff you want. Then it's just a matter of looking at the data and pulling trends out that support your preconceived bias.

If you really want to analyze it, please at least do so in a way that makes sense. Saying there were X number of blocks at >10PH/s vs Y blocks at <10PH/s in a given period is a relatively useless measurement. Take the numbers from whatever period you want (say everything from the start of December onward), calculate the luck for each block solved, then group them along whatever cutoff you want. Then it's just a matter of looking at the data and pulling trends out that support your preconceived bias.

Your legendary status precedes you!While you are still basking in it, pull your finger out and post your own numbers that, apparently, make sense (you patronising so and so!)

If you really want to analyze it, please at least do so in a way that makes sense. Saying there were X number of blocks at >10PH/s vs Y blocks at <10PH/s in a given period is a relatively useless measurement. Take the numbers from whatever period you want (say everything from the start of December onward), calculate the luck for each block solved, then group them along whatever cutoff you want. Then it's just a matter of looking at the data and pulling trends out that support your preconceived bias.

Your legendary status precedes you!While you are still basking in it, pull your finger out and post your own numbers that, apparently, make sense (you patronising so and so!)

I don't really care enough to bother, I've never seen anything at Slush that suggests a problem. If, like our good friends bigbitmine and rpandassociates, you want assert that there is a fundamental problem with the pool that keeps it from scaling over 10PH/s it's on you to show that the problem isn't just an invention of your imagination.

If you really want to analyze it, please at least do so in a way that makes sense. Saying there were X number of blocks at >10PH/s vs Y blocks at <10PH/s in a given period is a relatively useless measurement. Take the numbers from whatever period you want (say everything from the start of December onward), calculate the luck for each block solved, then group them along whatever cutoff you want. Then it's just a matter of looking at the data and pulling trends out that support your preconceived bias.

Your legendary status precedes you!While you are still basking in it, pull your finger out and post your own numbers that, apparently, make sense (you patronising so and so!)

I don't really care enough to bother, I've never seen anything at Slush that suggests a problem. If, like our good friends bigbitmine and rpandassociates, you want assert that there is a fundamental problem with the pool that keeps it from scaling over 10PH/s it's on you to show that the problem isn't just an invention of your imagination.

If you do not care enough to bother, then what use would it serve for me (or anyone) to prove your percieved lack of a fundamental problem or otherwise, as the case may be? Or is it the case that you really believe that your opinion matters?

I don't really care enough to bother, I've never seen anything at Slush that suggests a problem. If, like our good friends bigbitmine and rpandassociates, you want assert that there is a fundamental problem with the pool that keeps it from scaling over 10PH/s it's on you to show that the problem isn't just an invention of your imagination.

+1It's very simple on my opinion - people join when there is an increased luck, which should even out latter, so ...

If you really want to analyze it, please at least do so in a way that makes sense. Saying there were X number of blocks at >10PH/s vs Y blocks at <10PH/s in a given period is a relatively useless measurement. Take the numbers from whatever period you want (say everything from the start of December onward), calculate the luck for each block solved, then group them along whatever cutoff you want. Then it's just a matter of looking at the data and pulling trends out that support your preconceived bias.

Your legendary status precedes you!While you are still basking in it, pull your finger out and post your own numbers that, apparently, make sense (you patronising so and so!)

I don't really care enough to bother, I've never seen anything at Slush that suggests a problem. If, like our good friends bigbitmine and rpandassociates, you want assert that there is a fundamental problem with the pool that keeps it from scaling over 10PH/s it's on you to show that the problem isn't just an invention of your imagination.

If you do not care enough to bother, then what use would it serve for me (or anyone) to prove your percieved lack of a fundamental problem or otherwise, as the case may be? Or is it the case that you really believe that your opinion matters?

It doesn't, but then I really don't expect it to. Neither does yours. However if I were to set about about to show that the pool was having issues scaling, I would try and do so in a way that actually shed some light on the issue. Feel free to do so however you want, but I will point out that the numbers you posted are useless just so they don't confuse anyone else.

PS - Did you know that this pool found zero blocks in the first half of 2014 when the pool hashrate was above 10TH/s? Seems pretty clearcut to me there's a scaling issue somewhere.